Die Balance zwischen der adäquaten Beschreibung der Besonderheiten von Untersuchungsfällen, und der 2 | KOSMÜTZKY eT al. 1 | INTRODUC TION: CHALLENGING THE PATHS OF (QUALITATIVE) COMPAR ATIVE RESE ARCH International comparative research is one of the key methodologies within the field of higher education research and has become a growing type of research in recent years (Cantwell, 2020; Dobbins, Knill, & Vögtle, 2011; Kosmützky & Krücken, 2014; Tight, 2012; Weiler, 2008). The significant benefit of international comparative studies is their ability to broaden our horizon: they give us the opportunity to reflect upon phenomena within our own higher education system through the lens of other systems. They also help to deconstruct narrow and often parochial national perspectives, as well as to overcome single-country myopia, where one assumes that all other systems follow the logic of the system in one’s own country. By providing a picture of what is going on elsewhere in the world, these studies also foster the analysis of the growing international dimension as well as the transnational and global entanglement of higher education. The comparison of similarities and differences across higher education systems can also enable us to see more general patterns of phenomena within higher education, and, consequently, or simultaneously, in other domains of society or public policy. We can use these patterns to theorise and build new theoretical assumptions about higher education’s mode of operations and social dynamics (Diogo, 2015, 2019; Kogan, Bauer, Bleiklie, & Henkel, 2006; Kosmützky, 2018; Teichler, 2014). However, comparative research (in higher education and beyond) also faces particular methodological challenges (for higher education, see, e.g., Antonucci, 2013; Kosmützky & Nokkala, 2014; Reale, 2014; and beyond, see, e.g., Hantrais, 2009; Hölscher, 2017; Smelser, 1976). Finding the balance between adequately describing the uniqueness of the context of the Herstellung einer hinreichenden Basis für Vergleichbarkeit und analytische Verallgemeinerung zu finden, wird in der Diskussion zu Vergleichsmethodologie als eine zentrale Herausforderung angesehen. Methodologische Überlegungen dazu, wie die Besonderheiten von Fällen und Vergleichbarkeit in Studien gleichermaßen adäquat gefasst werden können, wurden für die quantitative Forschung bereits ausführlich diskutiert. In jüngster Zeit wurden zudem vielversprechende methodische Überlegungen für die qualitativ vergleichende Forschung in komparativen Forschungsfeldern, die zur Hochschulforschung benachbart sind, gemacht. Der Artikel will diese Diskussion in die vergleichende Hochschulforschung einführen. Er diskutiert daher neuere methodologische Vorschläge in der qualitativen, international vergleichenden Forschung, stellt eine Verbindung zu älteren analytischen Ansätzen her, die in der Hochschulforschung in den 1960er und 1970er Jahren zum Einsatz kamen, und demonstriert den analytischen Wert dieser Vorschläge anhand einer qualitativen Fallstudie zu Forschungsgruppen in unterschiedlichen Organisationskontexten in drei verschiedenen Länderkontexten. | 3 KOSMÜTZKY eT al. studied phenomena and maintaining sufficient common ground for comparability and analytical generalisation has widely been recognised as a key challenge in international comparative research for both variable-oriented quantitative research and case-based qualitative research (see, e.g., Goldthorpe, 1997; Przeworski & Teune, 1970; Ragin, 1987; Scheuch, 1967; Smelser, 1976; and for comparative higher education in particular, see, e.g., Goedebuure & van Vught, 1996; Teichler, 1996; Välimaa & Nokkala, 2014). Research on both comparative traditions faces complementary problems. Different paths of methodological guidelines, as well as reflections on how to adequately cover context and comparability, have been discussed in the research methods-related literature and in the literature on various (comparative) neighbouring fields (e.g., comparative education, comparative politics, science and technology studies (STS), and the sociology of science). However, such a debate is mostly missing in higher education research. Qualitative methods are frequently used in comparative studies within the field of higher education research (Kosmützky, 2016). Nevertheless, not many methodological reflections that can help higher education researchers to cope with the methodological issues of qualitative comparative studies are available within the knowledge base of the field. This is not surprising when we bear in mind that higher education research is not a discipline with a strong tradition of methodological development. Rather, it is an objector problem-oriented field of study (Cantwell, 2020; Teichler, 1996). The aim of our article is to reinvigorate the debate on comparative methodology in higher education research by importing some knowledge on comparative methodology from disciplines and comparative sub-disciplines that form the intellectual and institutional base of our interdisciplinary field (Schwarz & Teichler, 2000).1 Among the neighbouring fields, comparative politics plays a major role when it comes to comparative methodologies for qualitative data sets and case studies. Two methods specifically designed for qualitative small-N studies have been developed within the field: qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and comparative historical analysis (CHA). A lot of literature exists on QCA (for overviews, see, e.g., Berg-Schlosser, De Meur, Rihoux, & Ragin, 2009; Rihoux & Ragin, 2009; Schneider & Wagemann, 2010), but QCA is not a ‘true’ qualitative (and inductive) method. Rather, it is a variable-oriented (and hypothesis-driven) method based on set-theoretical thinking (Buche, Buche, & Siewert, 2016). Thus, it does not meet the requirements for qualitative comparative research (for similar arguments, see, e.g., Bergene, 2007). CHA is a well-developed qualitative case-based method for temporal analysis of macro-social configurations. It uses process tracing as a core method. Like QCA, CHA only partially meets the requirements for comparative higher education research, as it focuses on macro-social change. Many research questions in the higher education research field focus on the meso-level or micro-level aspects of higher education (for overviews, see, e.g., Mahoney, 2007; Mahoney & Rueschemeyer, 2003b; Mahoney & Thelen, 2015). Furthermore, a vivid comparative (international) research debate is taking place in the field of the comparative politics of education. Methodological innovations that may suit higher education research might spring from this field in the future (Gift & Wibbels, 2014; Moe & Wiborg, 2017). Interestingly, a pronounced lack of methodological considerations has existed for qualitative comparative research in comparative education, which has a strong qualitative tradition (Phillips & Schweisfurth, 2014). However, a discussion has taken place on the advancement of the methodological challenges of qualitative international comparisons in the qualitative branch of STS and in the sociology of science. These fields are as close to higher education as the field of comparative education is (Kosmützky, 2016; Manzon, 2011). Scholars from these fields who work ethnographically have made innovative suggestions in several articles and in special issues and anthologies, and these suggestions may be fruitful for higher education research (Deville, Guggenheim, & Hrdličková, 2016b; Hine, 2007; Morita, 2014; Niewöhner & Scheffer, 2008, 2010b). Central to their research paradigm is the goal of maintaining the openness and context sensitivity of qualitative social research, and of not giving it up through a fixation on a priori defined comparative criteria. Their methodological suggestions for comparative research maintain this openness, even as they, at the same time, grapple with comparability and aim to produce comparable case descriptions. In this paper, Sørensen’s approach to process-oriented, multi-sited comparability (Sørensen, 2008, 2010), and Schmidt’s method of explorative comparison (Schmidt, 2008, 2012) are utilised. Both basically propose an 4 | KOSMÜTZKY eT al. inversion of the standard comparative process (defining comparative criteria—comparing cases—denoting differences/similarities). Sørensen (2008, 2010) additionally suggests a rearrangement of the spatial constellation. The plan here is to connect their propositions to comparative higher education research that also uses many other methodological approaches than ethnography and that also utilises a range of qualitative data (e.g., interviews, documents and website material) and various methods of data analysis (coding, qualitative content analysis and a variety of reconstructive analyses—grounded theory methodology, narrative analysis, sequential analysis and the documentary method) (Tight, 2012, 2013; Wells, Kolek, Williams, & Saunders, 2015). Furthermore, they will be related to older and ‘comparable’ approaches to comparison that have been used in higher education. These include the four-step model of comparison by Hilker (1962) and Bereday (1964), as well as the emic/etic approach by Berry (1969, 1989, 1999). Furthermore, the value of Sørensen’s and Schmidt’s suggestions will be demonstrated via utilising them for a qualitative small-N interview-based case study on research group orientation in competitive institutional environments. This article is not first and foremost about the empirical findings of this study (Nokkala & Diogo, 2019). Rather, the study will be used to discuss how comparability (and generalisations) can be achieved in qualitative comparative case studies in a different way. The article is structured as follows: first, we begin with remarks on the role of comparative criteria for a comparative intellectual operation (the so-called tertii comparationis) and on the tension between context and comparability. We also introduc

中文翻译：

---

在背景和可比性之间：为定性比较研究中熟悉的方法论挑战探索新的解决方案

模具平衡 zwischen der adäquaten Beschreibung der Besonderheiten von Untersuchungsfällen, und der 2 | KOSMÜTZKY 等人 1 | 引言：挑战（定性）比较研究的路径 国际比较研究是高等教育研究领域的关键方法之一，近年来已成为一种日益增长的研究类型（Cantwell，2020；Dobbins、Knill， & Vögtle，2011；Kosmützky 和 ​​Krücken，2014；Tight，2012；Weiler，2008）。国际比较研究的显着好处是它们能够拓宽我们的视野：它们让我们有机会通过其他系统的视角反思我们自己的高等教育系统中的现象。它们还有助于解构狭隘且往往狭隘的国家观点，以及克服单一国家的近视，假设所有其他系统都遵循自己国家系统的逻辑。通过提供世界其他地方正在发生的事情的图景，这些研究还促进了对日益增长的国际层面以及高等教育的跨国和全球纠缠的分析。高等教育系统之间异同的比较还可以让我们看到高等教育中更普遍的现象模式，从而或同时看到其他社会或公共政策领域的现象。我们可以使用这些模式对高等教育的运作模式和社会动态进行理论化和构建新的理论假设（Diogo，2015 年，2019 年；Kogan、Bauer、Bleiklie 和 Henkel，2006 年；Kosmützky，2018 年；Teichler，2014 年）。然而，比较研究（高等教育及其他领域）也面临特殊的方法论挑战（高等教育，参见，例如 Antonucci，2013；Kosmützky & Nokkala，2014；Reale，2014；以及以后，参见，例如 Hantrais，2009；Hölscher， 2017 年；斯梅尔瑟，1976 年）。在充分描述 Herstellung einer hinreichenden Basis für Vergleichbarkeit und analytische Verallgemeinerung zu finden，wird in der Diskussion zu Vergleichsmethodologie als eine zentrale Herausforderung angesehen 的上下文之间找到平衡。Methodologische Überlegungen dazu, wie die Besonderheiten von Fällen und Vergleichbarkeit in Studien gleichermaßen adäquat gefasst werden können, wurden für diequantity Forschung bereits ausführlich diskutiert。在 jüngster Zeit wurden zudem vielversprechende methodische Überlegungen für die qualitativ vergleichende Forschung in komparativen Forschungsfeldern, die zur Hochschulforschung benachbart sind, gemacht。Der Artikel 将在 die vergleichende Hochschulforschung einführen 中进行讨论。二diskutiert达希尔neuere methodologischeVorschläge在德qualitativen，国际vergleichenden Forschung，stellt EINE Verbindung祖älterenanalytischenAnsätzen她，模具在DER Hochschulforschung在书房1960er UND 1970er Jahren的Zum Einsatz假面，UND demonstriert书房analytischen WERT dieserVorschlägeanhand einer qualitativen Fallstudie祖Forschungsgruppen在 drei verschiedenen Länderkontexten 中的 unterschiedlichen Organisationskontexten。| 3 KOSMÜTZKY 等人。研究现象并为可比性和分析概括保持足够的共同点已被广泛认为是面向变量的定量研究和基于案例的定性研究的国际比较研究中的关键挑战（参见，例如 Goldthorpe，1997；Przeworski & Teune， 1970 年；Ragin，1987 年；Scheuch，1967 年；Smelser，1976 年；特别是对于比较高等教育，参见 Goedebuure 和 van Vught，1996 年；Teichler，1996 年；Välimaa 和 Nokkala，2014 年）。对两种比较传统的研究面临着互补的问题。方法指南的不同路径，以及如何充分涵盖背景和可比性的思考，已经在研究方法相关的文献和各种（比较）相邻领域的文献中进行了讨论（例如，比较教育、比较政治学、科学技术研究 (STS) 和科学社会学）。然而，高等教育研究中大多没有这样的辩论。定性方法经常用于高等教育研究领域的比较研究（Kosmützky，2016 年）。然而，在该领域的知识库中，可以帮助高等教育研究人员应对定性比较研究的方法论问题的方法论反思并不多。当我们牢记高等教育研究不是一门具有强大方法论发展传统的学科时，这并不奇怪。相反，它是一个面向反对者问题的研究领域（Cantwell，2020 年；Teichler，1996 年）。我们文章的目的是通过从构成我们跨学科领域的知识和制度基础的学科和比较子学科中导入一些比较方法学知识，重振高等教育研究中关于比较方法论的辩论（Schwarz & Teichler，2000）。 1 在相邻领域中，比较政治在定性数据集和案例研究的比较方法方面发挥着重要作用。该领域已经开发了两种专门为定性小 N 研究设计的方法：定性比较分析 (QCA) 和比较历史分析 (CHA)。关于 QCA 的文献很多（有关概述，请参见，例如 Berg-Schlosser、De Meur、Rihoux 和 Ragin，2009 年；Rihoux 和 Ragin，2009 年；Schneider 和 Wagemann，2010 年），但 QCA 不是“真正的”定性（和归纳）方法。相反，它是一种基于集合论思维的面向变量（和假设驱动）的方法（Buche、Buche 和 Siewert，2016 年）。因此，它不符合定性比较研究的要求（对于类似的论点，参见，例如，Bergene，2007）。CHA 是一种成熟的基于定性案例的方法，用于宏观社会配置的时间分析。它使用进程跟踪作为核心方法。与 QCA 一样，CHA 仅部分满足比较高等教育研究的要求，因为它侧重于宏观社会变化。高等教育研究领域的许多研究问题都集中在高等教育的中观层面或微观层面（有关概述，请参见例如 Mahoney, 2007; Mahoney & Rueschemeyer, 2003b; Mahoney & Thelen, 2015）。此外，教育的比较政治领域正在进行一场生动的比较（国际）研究辩论。适合高等教育研究的方法论创新可能会在未来从这个领域涌现（Gift & Wibbels，2014 年；Moe & Wiborg，2017 年）。有趣的是，比较教育中的定性比较研究明显缺乏方法论上的考虑，它具有很强的定性传统（Phillips & Schweisfurth，2014）。然而，在 STS 的定性分支和科学社会学中，关于定性国际比较的方法论挑战的进展已经进行了讨论。这些领域与比较教育领域一样接近高等教育（Kosmützky，2016 年；Manzon，2011 年）。从事民族志工作的这些领域的学者在多篇文章、特刊和选集中提出了创新建议，这些建议可能对高等教育研究富有成效（Deville, Guggenheim, & Hrdličková, 2016b; Hine, 2007; Morita, 2014; Niewöhner & Scheffer, 2008, 2010b)。他们研究范式的核心目标是保持定性社会研究的开放性和上下文敏感性，而不是通过固定先验定义的比较标准而放弃它。他们对比较研究的方法论建议保持了这种开放性，即使他们同时努力解决可比性并旨在产生可比较的案例描述。在本文中，Sørensen 的面向流程的多站点可比性方法 (Sørensen, 2008, 2010)，并且使用了施密特的探索性比较方法（施密特，2008 年，2012 年）。两者基本上都提出了 4 | KOSMÜTZKY 等人 标准比较过程的倒置（定义比较标准——比较案例——表示差异/相似性）。Sørensen (2008, 2010) 还建议重新排列空间星座。这里的计划是将他们的命题与比较高等教育研究联系起来，该研究还使用了许多其他方法论而不是民族志，并且还利用了一系列定性数据（例如访谈、文件和网站材料）和各种数据分析方法（编码、定性内容分析和各种重构分析——扎根理论方法、叙事分析、顺序分析和文献方法）（Tight，2012 年、2013 年；Wells、Kolek、威廉姆斯和桑德斯，2015 年）。此外，它们将与高等教育中使用的较旧和“可比较”的比较方法有关。其中包括 Hilker (1962) 和 Bereday (1964) 的四步比较模型，以及 Berry (1969, 1989, 1999) 的主位/主位方法。此外，Sørensen 和 Schmidt 的建议的价值将通过将它们用于基于小 N 访谈的定性案例研究来证明，该案例研究关于竞争性制度环境中的研究群体导向。本文首先不是关于本研究的实证结果 (Nokkala & Diogo, 2019)。相反，该研究将用于讨论如何以不同的方式在定性比较案例研究中实现可比性（和概括）。文章结构如下：首先，我们首先评论比较标准对于比较智力操作（所谓的 tertii comparationis）的作用以及上下文和可比性之间的张力。我们还介绍